The meta-debate is whether it was clever or not of Bill Nye to accept the invitation to debate in the first place. Many people believe that Ken Ham has already won just because Bill Nye has agreed to debate. Debates are not the way science is done, and obviously both parties are going to stand their intellectual ground and not move an inch. What scientists seem to fear the most is that accepting to debate science with creationists lends them credence, that creationists looks like they are being taken seriously, and as a consequence that their theory, creationism, in the eyes of the public is afforded credibility.
Jerry Coyne, for example:

He thinks there are better ways for Bill Nye the Science Guy to make use of all the good will he's earned from his science TV shows.

"I'd tell him, 'Keep going around giving talks about evolution. Write about it. Give lectures.' People love that," Coyne said. "He's greatly beloved by a large number of Americans. But don't get into a one-on-one with a creationist. If you show up for a debate like that, you lose."

"Poeple?" What people? Yes, people who watch science programs on the TV in the first place. But many of the creationists don't let their children watch them at all! With a debate like this, it is possible that Bill Nye can reach some of those, and sow a few seeds of enlightenment, so to speak.
I don't think there is anything to worry about for one simple reason: the facts are on our side. Evolution really is true, science really does work, and prayer really, really doesn't. Therefore, the more this debate is made public, the more children and high schoolers are made aware of the opposing sides, the more people will understand and believe in evolution (i.e., accept the evidence) in the future.
All Bill Nye has to do is calmly (or not calmly) explain why evolution is true and why creationism is not, and sit back and let Ken Ham make a fool of himself. Ham can go ahead and sound as eloquent and wise as he wants - the bottom line is that his view of the world is the wrong one, and there is nothing he can do to stop the coming generations from learning that, save for stalling it by affecting the school boards across the country that determines what is taught in school.
I predict that whatever commentators will say in the days following the debate on February 4th about who won and why, the real test will be determined years ahead when we see that, indeed, more and more young people flee from creationism and realize that science is the only reliable way to learn about the natural world, and that creationism can teach us nothing about it. That will be the real victory, and Bill Nye will have been part of it.
Besides, it's going to be a good old laugh, and you know it!

Richard Dawkins says that when you accept to debate someone, you signal that they are worth debating, and Dawkins doesn't think creationists are worth debating, because there is nothing to debate, as the jury has been back for quite a while and has ruled in favor of evolution.

However, I say it is worth debating it, because lots of young people are on the fence about evolution vs. creationism. They are brought up with creationism by their parents and pastors, but the more they are exposed to science, the more they start doubting everything they learn - which is exactly what critical thinning is all about. We should therefore encourage debate when it will be seen by young people who are not given many other chances to hear what scientists have to say about creationism.

I do agree with Dawkins on the fact that it is potentially problematic that Bill Nye is not an evolutionary biologist. It would be preferable to have someone more knowledgable on the panel. Like me. :P

Debates are good for raising issues in a lively and entertaining way to get people to begin thinking for themselves, but they are no good at all for establishing truth. This is because the outcome of a debate usually depends much more on the skill and preparation of the debater than the subject matter under debate. - James Buckner

Agree with James Buckner. This debate will highlight to some emerging adults that science does have something to say about human origins, etc. That should be obvious, but due to religious fundamentalism and homeschooling, it unfortunately isn' in this country.

Pleiotropy comes from the Greek πλείων pleion, meaning "more", and τρέπειν trepein, meaning "to turn, to convert". It designates the occurrence of a single gene affecting multiple traits, and is a hugely important concept in evolutionary biology.

I'm a postdoc at UC Santa Barbara.

All Many aspects of evolution interest me, but my research focus is currently on microbial evolution, adaptive radiation, speciation, fitness landscapes, epistasis, and the influence of genetic architecture on adaptation and speciation.